Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 233 posts

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#201

Post by iinnPP »

vminvsky wrote: post #177
the_other wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But will it give reliable results?

according to the paper they get 98% accuracy. another recent paper came out saying it's always possible to discriminate between real and synthetic text [1]. i think the core problem is with the generalist classifiers (gptzero, openai detector, etc). ex. openai's classifier has an accuracy of around 25% on it's own text. however, when you train a bespoke classifier (like the authors did), you can get really good resul…

The moment a detector is taken seriously is the moment it will be trivially beaten by another AI designed to beat the detector.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#202

Post by NovaDudely »

jahsome wrote: post #51
karim79 wrote: post #44

Two years from now: User: "How do I boil an egg?" LLM: Eggs cannot be boiled. They must be placed in the microwave, six at a time. Fewer than six eggs will not work. Ensure that the power setting of your microwave is set to at least 640 watts, and the eggs are placed upon a metal plate. Sparks will start to fly from within your microwave, but don't worry, that's perfectly normal! When you see flames within the microw…

This is funnier than it has any right to be, mostly given the over-abundant "AI will fix everything" narrative currently dominating the hn discourse. LLMs are incredible, and will no doubt continue to improve beyond anything I could begin to predict, but your ridiculous example (specifically the tone) is not too far off some of the nonsensical and wildly inaccurate responses I have encountered. I find rhe unfailing c…

There is a kind of charm to AI Hallucinations. To confidently talk nonsense.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#203

Post by NovaDudely »

taylodl wrote: post #105
jahsome wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is funnier than it has any right to be, mostly given the over-abundant "AI will fix everything" narrative currently dominating the hn discourse. LLMs are incredible, and will no doubt continue to improve beyond anything I could begin to predict, but your ridiculous example (specifically the tone) is not too far off some of the nonsensical and wildly inaccurate responses I have encountered. I find rhe unfailing c…

LLMs are incredible tools, but they're just that - tools. They're not a replacement for human judgment. Heck, one of the things you have to judge is how accurate the answer is. The LLM can't assess that - as you note it has unfailing confidence in reporting the wrong information. What I have found, and I've been using Bard over ChatGPT because Bard seems to be a bit smarter at first glance, is these tools are powerfu…

This is just it, I don't fear LLM's - that are a really cool technology that once you understand their utility are really cool. I fear how others will use them not understanding their limitations.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#204

Post by parl_match »

sbierwagen wrote: post #198
mvdtnz wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@dang are we ever going to do anything about this? You almost can't read a comment section in a thread about AI without this crap now.

I mean, what rule do you actually want here? ChatGPT has been RLHFed into a pretty distinctive style, but there's no reason to think a better LLM wouldn't have a more natural style. If AGI is possible, then HN will end up with AI users who contribute on an equal basis to the modal HN user, and then shortly after that, more equal. Should all AI be banned? Should you have to present a birth certificate to create an acc…

> Should you have to present a birth certificate to create an account?

I actually honestly believe that the era of "open registration" forums and discussion places is going to come to a close, largely due to GNN.

It's not going to become a problem until the hardware and walltime costs of training models and running them comes down. You'll know it's a problem when every 10th post on 4chan is a model pretending to be a human that is of a gentle but unyielding political persuasion of some sort.

I don't know what the end pattern will be, but it'll likely be a combination of things

- large platforms, like reddit or facebook, where individual communities "vibe check" posts out.

or

- some sort of barrier to entry, such as a small amount of money (the so called "idiot tax": if you're an idiot, you get banned, and you have to pay again)

- some sort of (manual!) positive reputation system for discussion boards, sort of like how peering works

- some sort of federation technology where you apply and subscribe to federation networks

I don't think we'll really be able to predict what the future looks like right now (it's not even widely recognized as a problem). And since this is HN, I'll add: I don't think there's any serious money to be made running reputation or IDV, unless you've already started. And if it becomes a serious enough problem, players like ID.me/equifax/bureau will be the situation for "serious" networks (linkedin, facebook, chat, etc).

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#205

Post by autoexecdotbat »

sbierwagen wrote: post #198
mvdtnz wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@dang are we ever going to do anything about this? You almost can't read a comment section in a thread about AI without this crap now.

I mean, what rule do you actually want here? ChatGPT has been RLHFed into a pretty distinctive style, but there's no reason to think a better LLM wouldn't have a more natural style. If AGI is possible, then HN will end up with AI users who contribute on an equal basis to the modal HN user, and then shortly after that, more equal. Should all AI be banned? Should you have to present a birth certificate to create an acc…

I wonder how far off we are from an AI with a forged birth certificate.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#206

Post by senectus1 »

GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #42
senectus1 wrote: post #8

what exactly is involved in training an AI?

You could try the qualification test here: https://www.dataannotation.tech/ Some examples: - writing creative stories in response to queries - writing corrective responses to "unsafe" queries - comparing the responses from different versions of the AI - identifying incorrect responses

it seems like if someone gamified this, it would get done for "free"...

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#207

Post by lisasays »

chickenpotpie wrote: post #161

This article is complete bunk. The researchers used a "chatgpt detector" which as we've seen over and over in academia, do not work. This study is completely unfounded. God I'm choking on the irony of an article about the dangers of using AI to train AI based on a study that used AI to detect AI

Per the article, the didn't just use the static detector:

They also extracted the workers’ keystrokes in a bid to work out whether they’d copied and pasted their answers, an indicator that they’d generated their responses elsewhere.

So while I don't yet know if the article is bunk -- I do know that your hot take is bunk.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#208

Post by dontupvoteme »

jameshart wrote: post #194
chickenpotpie wrote: post #161

This article is complete bunk. The researchers used a "chatgpt detector" which as we've seen over and over in academia, do not work. This study is completely unfounded. God I'm choking on the irony of an article about the dangers of using AI to train AI based on a study that used AI to detect AI

Everyone’s trying to take the shortcut. Can someone in this space invest in doing the hard work to have experts manually curate data? You know back before Wikipedia, publishers used to pay people to write and edit encyclopedias? It doesn’t scale. Sure. That’s what the AI you’re building is for though - it will scale. Throwing compute at ‘the entirety of the internet’ feels like such a lazy way to get what we’re after…

Right now I'm pretty sure just having gpt rewrite the average low to mediocre content that made up the gruel of its generic internet diet and doing fine tunes will get us another 5-10x along, but most hopefully for us little guys out there with a ~24-48GB VRAM cap

If GPT4 really is 8 230M models, the next bit for us will be a few ~1-5M models that swap in for whatever you want to create, or talk about, or what have you

Imagine a model trained just on English football for the purpose of having a good time in the pub that is used when the topic changes to it. I bet you could pass on the dailymails sports page if you add some "u"s into your words.

Or a model finetuned specifically on the library you're trying to debug, maybe even specifically in combination with other tools you're trying to put together.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#209

Post by natch »

anigbrowl wrote: post #54
natch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could just as well ask, why are you false flagging as someone who doesn't understand that it's making a point? That's what sarcasm does. An off topic and therefore unwelcome point, to be sure. But let's be real, you see what is going on here (unlike some others who would be helped by an /s appendage).

HN isn't for trolls.

Right, we agree on that.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#210

Post by natch »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #155
natch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could just as well ask, why are you false flagging as someone who doesn't understand that it's making a point? That's what sarcasm does. An off topic and therefore unwelcome point, to be sure. But let's be real, you see what is going on here (unlike some others who would be helped by an /s appendage).

Can you explain the "point"?

I’ll decline. It was off topic.
Post reply on HN